Results 21 to 40 of 98
I would disagree with this. The amount of corporate money going to both candidates shows that the ruling class is equally confortable with either option.
Obama didn't even have to talk-left that much during this campagin because there was no primary challenger and in the general election he only promised to not be as scary as the DNC made the also moderate Romney out to be. So last time Obama's victory did have some symbolic power and he had a clear mandate for populist "change" despite always only offering New Democrat conservative policies for the most part. He then immediately ditched Labor and took universal healtcare off the table - almost before the inaguration even. So that was Obama with every opportunity to side with mild liberal reform and he wouldn't even do that - he proved right away where he stood with the TARP bailout. Now with no pretensions of promises to his liberal base, and little voter mandate even if he had made promises, and a campaign where he said he would cut medicare better than Romney, defend Israel better than Romney, push for US domination of the world better than Romney.
I'd say this is actually a real and interesting thing to look at in this and the past election. However, I don't think this actually means anything significant about racism in the US since racism as a structure in capitalism relies more on Police, the Courts and Prisons, or the INS than it does on the ideas of some old bigots. And what's troubling in that regard is that the machinery of modern racism is fully supported by both parties unequivocably and a recent poll I posted in another thread shows that a huge chunck of pro-Democrat voters support implicitly racist attitudes. Obama is fully a part of that from blaming absentee or "lazy" black dads for black poverty and inequality, to supporting "tough on crime" policies, to just explicitly refusing to push back against racist claims and accusations from challengers, the tea-party, etc. We have a black president telling the racists, "Sure, do what you will and I'll hide" which has only emboldend overt racism - at the same time that materially strutural racism in hoseing, employment and policing has increased since the economic crisis leaving the black "middle class" workers attacked as "lazy postalworkers" and "entitled public workers" etc as black unemployement and forclosures rise faster than the average.
So what has been defeated though, seems to be the "Southern Strategy" of the Republicans: which was basically to rally people to their platform by covertly appealing to the racist base of the old Dixicrats and then to racist suburbanites: tieing racism to a neoliberal reform agenda against public spending (for the poor and in urban areas) and "entitlements".
The old Republican popular coalition of wingnuts: racists, libertarians, the religious-right, and gun-advocates is not as solid as it was (some animosity between these factions) and is no longer enough for natioanl election victories it seems - and the social politics needed to unite these groups to the pro-business policies pushed by the Republicans is actually driving more people over to the Democrats - gays, latinos, women specifically.
But in my opinion, this doesn't mean that racism is on the decline or that the right is now marginal. In fact, contradictorally, the country is still moving to the right even while the population has moved tentitivly to the left (which has been happening since the 1990s IMO) and continues to do so.
Republicans and Democrats are good-cop/bad-cop for our rulers and so if the Democrat's attempt to push their pro-corporate strategy hits the rocks or their coalition breaks apart (because part of the union movement or some other social movement involving people who generally support the Democrats actually is pushed to oppose the Democrats) then the logic of the two-party system means that voters will then have a chance to vote out the "disorder" caused by the Democrat's "indecisiveness" and vote-in the "order" that the Republicans will promise to restore.
Either President and our main goal would more or less stay the same even if how people reacted to those Presidents might varry. If Romney won maybe there'd be big protests like during the Bush years, but radicals would still have to try and organize an independant force among workers that would be able to oppose Romeny without just allowing that anger to flow right back into voting for Democrats. With Obama, it will be the same although we probably won't see big protests headed by liberal groups - we will still need to try and stich together a working class opposition to austerity, it just might mean that it starts smaller, but with more militant conclusions being drawn by people.
Obama's going to "balence the budget" which means cuts all around for us, so the pressures that brought Occypy, Wisconsin, and the Teyvon Martin protests will still be here and so I am hoping that with no-honeymoon this time Obama over-reaches and provokes at least another Occupy-type movement against austerity (even if different in form and tactics and character) which will provide a chance for workers to begin to grapple with fighting "the lesser evil".
But voting for Obama at the end of the day does amount to "supporting bourgeois asshole politics". There is no getting around this. The perception of Obama may and, in fact, often does diverge markedly from his objective role as a representative of capitalism. However, our role as socialists is not to pander to such perceptions, not to buy into the insidous argument that at least voting for Obama is better than voting for Romney because that is a recipe for political suicide as far as socialism is concerned since there will always be one option that will appear the lesser of two evils. Supporting the lesser of two evils only ensures that they continue to support "evil" - if I might put it like that. In other words we would continue to be supporting capitalism by endorsing one or other of capitalism's political representatives by giving them a blank cheque to administer capitalism
We need to break from that completely by not pandering to the wishy washy sentiment that holds that Obama is marginally better than Romney and is therefore worth supporting. He is not and none of them are. More to the point, supporting Obama only prepares the grounds for the Republicans to return, as they will, at some point when Obama will inevitably flounder and fail
You dont raise consciousness by inviting people to bang their heads against a brick wall. The only outcome of that is a concussed working class, not a class conscious one!
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
I think it's a good thing Obama won. When you raise issues with the conservative capitalist parties in power, a lot of that energy gets channeled into the liberal capitalist parties. I see it in the anti-austerity demos in the UK where Labour feels the need to slime up and join in (and then disgustingly call for more austerity). But raise issues with the liberal capitalist parties in power and people might actually realise that this two party capitalist system is a joke.... emphasis on 'might', of course. Obama and his policies can go fuck themselves but tactically (or is it strategically?) it might help bring more folks over to our side if their great liberal saviour is proven as impotent and uncaring as any other capitalist.
Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin
The point for the elite is to push and pull the populace one way and then the other in rhetoric, while in reality increasing their power and influence all the time. This way when crises occur, only the rhetoric is held responsible and the people clamour to move in the other direction rhetorically, while increasing the power of the elite further. A second term is promised to those presidents who play along, as a means of getting them to follow the elite lead. Obama must have agreed to submit to their plans in order to retain his position - does this mean war?
"In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interest of the immense majority in subjection to them. This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists." - Bakunin
"If your object is to secure liberty, you must learn to do without authority and compulsion." - Alexander Berkman
But it doesnt "help bring more folks over to our side" and this is surely the point!
In the long run, its only helps relentlesssly to discredit the Left and grind it down by tarring it by association if it is seen to be suggesting that it is a good thing that Obama should win and, by implication, that workers should vote for him. Its like I said - you are inviting workers to bang their heads against a brickwall in the vain hope that it will somehow change minds. It wont . Except perhaps to get said workers to change from supporting Democrats to supporting Republicans when Obama fails as inevitably he will . More likely, it will just add to an already pervasive sense of disillusionment and powerlessness that you cannot ever change anything fundamentally.... That frankly for me is most troubling thing of all about this - it helps to perpetuate this stifling unifom monodimensional view of social reality
We really have to get to grips with this one, once and for all, and be absolutely crystal clear from the start where we stand. We should not be supporting Obama or Milband or whoever - however "reluctantly" or "without illusions" (ha!) - or even be seen to be suggesting that they perhaps might be slightly less worse than their rivals and therefore possibly worth vorting for. No, we must break cleanly and decisively from this whole pernicious lesser-of-two-evils argument.
Not to do so is to ensure the perpetual marginalisation of the Left and the subordination of any socialist vision it might once have entertained to the machinations of reformist politics. This opportuinism widely promoted by the poseurs of so called pragmatism and realpolitik within the Left does it no favours at all, frankly
It is only through the politics of conviction and principle that the Left can hope to advance , for all the sneering insults of "dogmatism" that the political turncoats amongst us might want to hurl at the suggestion
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
I honestly thought Romney would win. I am kind of sad that my prophecy was unfulfilled
FKA Red Godfather
I never said anything about Obama being a 'lesser-evil' and I never said anything about supporting Miliband either. I was just saying that there are people who voted democrat because they consider themselves leftist/socialist or whatever that will be extremely disappointed in Obama and won't want to start voting republican. These people could be educated and brought to real marxism. A similar thing happened to me. I voted libdems because I thought they would be a 'change' or whatever. What they did end up being was the catalyst that encouraged me to read more about radical changes in the system rather than continuations of the same.
Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin
To the people talking about "social issues" -
Let's not forget that Obama couldn't even put his support behind same-sex marriage until the political climate was right. Equality is unobtainable in bourgeois society.
Despite the reactionary nature of the democratic party, the fact remains that Obama won, marijuana was legalized in two states, and I think same sex marriage was legalized in two more states. The far right has been dealt a major blow and the political climate in this country has been given a much needed push to the left. We aren't on the cusp of revolution or anything, but public opinion is definitely more receptive to all degrees of the left.
two issues that I don't give a fuck about
No and no. Nothing has been pushed to the left. If anything, the closeness of this race shows that Americans don't give much of a damn about left vs. right. Both candidates are on the right, as they both represent the interests of the bourgeois class. The country at this point still reflects bourgeois interests. If the country had been "pushed to the left," then the working class would be in a position to seriously challenge the bourgeois dictatorship.
Obviously I meant in a more liberal direction. I specifically said that the working class was not in a position to challenge capitalism. Learn to read.
You may not consider this significant but the FAR right has been dealt a significant blow.
You've missed the point entirely. Congratulations.
Maybe you should learn to write. There is a BIG difference between the left and liberalism. The latter is centrist, while the former is characterized by proletarian interest.
No it hasn't. The majority of Republicans aren't the insane reactionaries that you see on the internet. Most Republicans are fairly normal people. Hell, most of them are proletarians.
For as long as this ping-pong game between Democrats and Republicans continues, the left will go nowhere. We need to organize ourselves into a party of our own.
Well perhaps I misread you or you hadn't made yourself quite clear, but when you said "I think it's a good thing Obama won". and "Obama and his policies can go fuck themselves but tactically (or is it strategically?) it might help bring more folks over to our side if their great liberal saviour is proven as impotent and uncaring as any other capitalist" , I interpeted that as meaning you were suggesting one should encourage or look favourably upon people voting for Obama , knowing full well he will fail, and that they will somehow "come over to our side" as a result when he does fail. They won't and this was my point. They are far more likely to vote Republican next time or become politicaly disenchanted altogether.
People dont come over to our side unless we are clear, principled and uncompromising about what we stand for . Sure some - a very small percentage - might be radicalised by their disappointment with Obama but there is no guarantee they will move towards socialism as a result. If you are hoping that people will do so for negative reasons then you will be hoping in vain
People need a postive reason to come over to our side and and providing tacit or implied support for, and thus tarring yourself by association with, Obama - not that I am suggesting that that is what you are doing- is definitely not that.
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
Last I checked it was the Obama Administration that deported more undocumented brown people than it did any other undocumented group in the U.S. It was the Obama Admin. that ramped up the forces of domestic security to infiltrate leftist groups, tap our phones, read our emails and reintroduce and refine the methods of COINTELPRO. If that does not amount to a social issue then I don't know what will.
They don't need to preach about a "Christian Nation" because when the Republicans do too many people give them a free pass to pull off far nastier shit. NEVER CUT THE ENEMY ONE BIT OF SLACK!
Last edited by Prometeo liberado; 7th November 2012 at 16:29.
Brospierre-Albanian baseball was played with a frozen ball of shit and tree branch
"History knows no greater display of courage than that shown by the people of the Soviet Union."
Henry L. Stimson: U.S. Secretary of War
Take the word “fear” and the phrase “for what, it’s not going to change anything” out of your minds and take control of your future.
[I]Juan Jose Fernandez, Asturias
"I want to give a really bad party. I mean it. I want to give a party where there's a brawl and seductions and people going home with their feelings hurt and women passed out in the cabinet de toilette. You wait and see"
I said "more to the left". Still centrist, but MORE to the left.
I'm not talking about moderate republicans. I'm talking about white supremacists, forest dwelling libertarian weirdos, and Christian theocrats. For years the far right (and the moderate right to a lesser extent) has been whining about how the people hated Obama, and would throw his tyrannical ass out when they had the chance. This obviously didn't happen so they've been left embarrassed and demoralized. I've seen people on my facebook feed flipping the fuck out because their prophecy didn't come true.
Once again, I'm not saying this is some major victory for socialism, but the further this society moves to the left, even if it's just a tiny bit, the easier it will be for us to organize and make the case for socialism.
Your so called "push to the left" is only preparing the ground for the right to return again in triumph. The Obama administration like any administration that attempts to take on the adminstration of capitalism will fail and will disappoint big time. There is nothing whatsoever to celebrate in Obama's victory and if the Left wants to couple its fate and its fortunes to that victory - an act of the most astonishing myopia and stupidity, in my view - then i can confidently predict that the decline of the Left will not only continue but will accelerate in the next few years. Obama doesnt need the Left but if the Left think they need him they are in for a rude awakening when what little support they have drains away in the backlash to come. You mark my words....
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
One good thing about this fake choice between Tweedledum and tweedledee - the voter turnout seems to have fallen significantly compared tpo 20098 at least according to this site
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012...mbers-mandate/
Hopefully many of those abstaining would have done so as a matter of principle rather than out of aparthy. One reason why I always prefer spoiling you ballot rather than not using it
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
